Hickman v. Kobach et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
HARVEY D. HICKMAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. 25-3225-JWL
)
KRIS KOBACH, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is a civil rights action filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff proceeds pro se
and is civilly committed to the Kansas Sexual Predator Treatment Program (SPTP). Plaintiff
describes the nature of his case as being “an action seeking declaratory relief as to the
Constitutionality of the [KSVPA], specifically the provisions found in K.S.A. 59-29a08.” He asks
that the Court find the statute unconstitutional on its face and as applied to him. Then, Plaintiff
includes three enumerated claims in his Complaint: (1) violation of his rights under the Due
Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) violation of his right to freedom from restraint
under the Fourteenth Amendment; and (3) denial of a liberty interest without due process in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff claims that in 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025, he
did not receive an adequate annual review of his commitment as required by K.S.A. 59-29a08 and
the United States Constitution, causing “his confinement to be unconstitutional.” (Doc. 1, at 3.)
The Court entered a memorandum and order to show cause (“MOSC”) (Doc. 9) directing
Plaintiff to show cause by January 22, 2026, why this matter should not be dismissed due to the
deficiencies set forth. The MOSC stated that if Plaintiff failed within the time allotted to file a
Case 5:25-cv-03225-JWL Document 10 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 2

2
response, this action could be dismissed without further notice. Plaintiff has not filed a response
as of the date of this Order.
The Court found in the MOSC that the Complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted under § 1983. Because Plaintiff seeks declarations that would demonstrate the
invalidity of his continued confinement, the case must be filed as a habeas corpus proceeding rather
than under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Plaintiff must exhaust his state court remedies first. See
Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 482 (1994).
The MOSC provided that Plaintiff had until January 22, 2026, to show good cause why his
Complaint should not be dismissed, and “[f]ailure to respond by the deadline may result in
dismissal of this action without further notice.” (Doc. 9, at 6.) Plaintiff has failed to respond to
the MOSC and has failed to show good cause why his Complaint should not be dismissed for
failure to state a claim.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated January 30, 2026, at Kansas City, Kansas.
S/ John W. Lungstrum
JOHN W. LUNGSTRUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 5:25-cv-03225-JWL Document 10 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 2